Nuclear is not yet forgotten.
2.7 GW nuclear plant to kick off construction very soon in Wales. Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Plant.
USA is to start building reactors again and the Saudi's are very interested in nuclear power.

Yes, if it actually starts. They are still asking for a MW/hour price nearly as high as hinkley point, and the government will underwrite it and assume a lot of the risk. NOT open competition. Yes, we probably need it as most of the old nuclear plants are due to close down, but it is more of an insurance policy against energy storage taking too long to support renewables.

Nuclear is not yet forgotten.
2.7 GW nuclear plant to kick off construction very soon in Wales. Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Plant.
USA is to start building reactors again and the Saudi's are very interested in nuclear power.

Yes, if it actually starts. They are still asking for a MW/hour price nearly as high as hinkley point, and the government will underwrite it and assume a lot of the risk. NOT open competition. Yes, we probably need it as most of the old nuclear plants are due to close down, but it is more of an insurance policy against energy storage taking too long to support renewables.

I would bet it will go. The old adjacent units will be decommissioned by the UK govt.
The FEED is in full swing now and full construction to start 2020. Projection is for 8,000 to 10,000 workers at peak. And 850 plant workers when finished.

Energy storage capacity for other energy provider types is a big question to solve and not an easy one. Need some big batteries.

Across the world, solar energy share prices have crashed due to the decision by China to rein in subsidies on their manufacturing of solar components.

According to Caixin Global:

China has abruptly put the brakes on solar power subsidies, seeking to stem overcapacity in a sector that has benefited for years from government incentives.

The move caught many in the industry off guard.

The government won’t grant subsidies to any new ordinary solar projects this year. For those that are being built, the incentives will be cut by 0.05 yuan (0.8 U.S. cents) per kilowatt-hour (kWh).

Solar stocks have fallen across the board by double digits.

Wind energy has also suffered. For 7 days in the UK, their wind turbines stood still and produced no electricity. It was good news for birds and bats, and it wasn't a problem for those who continue to get wealthy on their government subsidies whether wind blows or not. It's another PR problem for an industry that relies on the intermittent whims of nature. As a result, it's not dependable, and it requires constant backup from evil fossil fuel. 555

Today, the renewable energy industry only survives because of subsidies. Those subsidies will only survive as long as the Believers can persuade enough people to keep paying for it with their hard-earned tax revenue.

Those who continue to bang pots and pans cheering for the end of some members of the private sector before they outlive their usefulness and efficiency are exactly those activist/alarmist ideologue Believers referred to in the article from Cal-Berkeley. These are the ones who make the movement toward clean and efficient energy a political movement that turns off the majority of the population. It's part of the reason why the Believers lost the edge in climate change over time. Facts bear it out.

Across the world, solar energy share prices have crashed due to the decision by China to rein in subsidies on their manufacturing of solar components.

According to Caixin Global:

China has abruptly put the brakes on solar power subsidies, seeking to stem overcapacity in a sector that has benefited for years from government incentives.

The move caught many in the industry off guard.

The government won’t grant subsidies to any new ordinary solar projects this year. For those that are being built, the incentives will be cut by 0.05 yuan (0.8 U.S. cents) per kilowatt-hour (kWh).

Solar stocks have fallen across the board by double digits.

Wind energy has also suffered. For 7 days in the UK, their wind turbines stood still and produced no electricity. It was good news for birds and bats, and it wasn't a problem for those who continue to get wealthy on their government subsidies whether wind blows or not. It's another PR problem for an industry that relies on the intermittent whims of nature. As a result, it's not dependable, and it requires constant backup from evil fossil fuel. 555

Today, the renewable energy industry only survives because of subsidies. Those subsidies will only survive as long as the Believers can persuade enough people to keep paying for it with their hard-earned tax revenue.

Those who continue to bang pots and pans cheering for the end of some members of the private sector before they outlive their usefulness and efficiency are exactly those activist/alarmist ideologue Believers referred to in the article from Cal-Berkeley. These are the ones who make the movement toward clean and efficient energy a political movement that turns off the majority of the population. It's part of the reason why the Believers lost the edge in climate change over time. Facts bear it out.

oh dear lets panic as something happened this WEEK , how about your take on the next 30 years. no more petrol/ diesel cars in the uk so we won't be buying any oil fake news boy reposting junk from the internet. bad news for gold too as its not made millionaires this week have you ever noticed that oil seems to change price daily ... bad news for oil this week , what a comedian

Across the world, solar energy share prices have crashed due to the decision by China to rein in subsidies on their manufacturing of solar components.

According to Caixin Global:

China has abruptly put the brakes on solar power subsidies, seeking to stem overcapacity in a sector that has benefited for years from government incentives.

The move caught many in the industry off guard.

The government won’t grant subsidies to any new ordinary solar projects this year. For those that are being built, the incentives will be cut by 0.05 yuan (0.8 U.S. cents) per kilowatt-hour (kWh).

Solar stocks have fallen across the board by double digits.

Wind energy has also suffered. For 7 days in the UK, their wind turbines stood still and produced no electricity. It was good news for birds and bats, and it wasn't a problem for those who continue to get wealthy on their government subsidies whether wind blows or not. It's another PR problem for an industry that relies on the intermittent whims of nature. As a result, it's not dependable, and it requires constant backup from evil fossil fuel. 555

Today, the renewable energy industry only survives because of subsidies. Those subsidies will only survive as long as the Believers can persuade enough people to keep paying for it with their hard-earned tax revenue.

Those who continue to bang pots and pans cheering for the end of some members of the private sector before they outlive their usefulness and efficiency are exactly those activist/alarmist ideologue Believers referred to in the article from Cal-Berkeley. These are the ones who make the movement toward clean and efficient energy a political movement that turns off the majority of the population. It's part of the reason why the Believers lost the edge in climate change over time. Facts bear it out.

President Donald Trump dealt his biggest blow to the renewable energy industry yet.

On Monday, Trump approved duties of as much as 30 percent on solar equipment made outside the U.S., a move that threatens to handicap a $28 billion industry that relies on parts made abroad for 80 percent of its supply.

The tariffs are the latest action by Trump to undermine the economics of renewables. The administration already decided to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement on climate change, sought to roll back Obama-era regulations on power plant-emissions and signed sweeping tax reforms that constrained financing for solar and wind. The import taxes are the most targeted strike on the industry yet and may have larger consequences for the energy world.

“We are inclined to view it as posing greater trade risk for all types of energy, particularly if other nations establish new trade barriers against U.S. products,” Washington-based research firm ClearView Energy Partners LLC said Monday.
Solar Surges

U.S. panel maker First Solar Inc. jumped as much as 9 percent to $75.20 in after-hours trading in New York. The Tempe, Arizona-based manufacturer stands to gain as costs for competing, foreign panels rise.

Just the threat of tariffs shook solar developers in recent months, with some hoarding panels and others stalling projects in anticipation of higher costs. The Solar Energy Industries Association projected 23,000 job losses this year in a sector that employed 260,000.

Trump approved four years of tariffs that start at 30 percent in the first year and gradually drop to 15 percent. The first 2.5 gigawatts of imported solar cells are exempt for each year.

The duties are lower than the 35 percent rate the U.S. International Trade Commission recommended in October after finding that imported panels were harming American manufacturers. The idea behind the tariffs is to raise the costs of cheap imports, particularly from Asia, and level the playing field for those who manufacture the parts domestically.

“This is not a goodbye for renewable energy in the U.S.,” Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency, said at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “I don’t believe this decision will reverse the solar expansion in the U.S. The global solar industry will adjust. The penetration of solar in the U.S. will continue.”

First Solar is the largest of a handful of panel makers left in the U.S. after most of the industry migrated to China in the past decade. That means the major impact of the duties will be on panel installers, which get most of their supplies from Chinese companies.

Despite higher anticipated costs, American solar installers including Vivint Solar Inc. and Sunrun Inc. jumped in after-hours trading. “A 30 percent tariff in Year One is bad,” said Gordon Johnson, a New York-based analyst at the Vertical Group, but “it’s less than what the consensus was.”

Jigar Shah, co-founder of investor Generate Capital Inc. and an outspoken advocate for the solar industry, went as far as to describe the decision as “good news.” The tariffs are “exactly what the solar industry asked for behind closed doors” to prevent a negative impact on companies, he said.
Not Deterred

The duties won’t be entirely devastating for the U.S. solar industry, said Hugh Bromley, a New York-based analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance. He estimated they’ll increase costs for large solar farms by less than 10 percent and for residential systems by about 3 percent.

The decision will “destruct some demand for new projects in the next two years,” Bromley said. “But they will likely prove insufficient in magnitude and duration to attract many new factories.”

For Trump, the tariffs represent a step toward making good on a campaign promise to get tough on the country that produces the most panels -- China. Trump’s trade issues took a backseat in 2017 while the White House focused on tax reform, but it’s now coming back into the fore: The solar dispute is among several potential trade decisions that also involve washing machines, consumer electronics and steel.
Solar Threatened

Tariffs may curb U.S. solar investments that have already fallen in recent years

The decision comes almost nine months after Suniva Inc., a bankrupt U.S. module manufacturer with a Chinese majority owner, sought import duties on solar cells and panels. It asserted that it had suffered “serious injury” from a flood of cheap panels produced in Asia. A month later, the U.S. unit of German manufacturer SolarWorld AG signed on as a co-petitioner, adding heft to Suniva’s cause.

Suniva had sought import duties of 32 cents a watt for solar panels produced outside the U.S. and a floor price of 74 cents a watt. Trump’s tariffs translate to a charge of about 10 cents a watt, according to Bromley.

Read More: U.S. Solar Has a $1.5 Billion, Long-Shot Plan to End a Trade War

Shunfeng International Clean Energy Ltd., Suniva’s parent, was up 3.9 percent in Hong Kong after jumping as much as 5.2 percent earlier.

While Trump has broad authority on the size, scope and duration of duties, the dispute may shift to a different venue. China and neighbors including South Korea may opt to challenge the decision at the World Trade Organization -- which has rebuffed prior U.S.-imposed tariffs.

Heard that before? 555 Over and over from Believers. It is their default position on everything related to warming, cooling, climate change, blah blah blah -- whatever they want to call it next.

They have been caught so many times using fake numbers and fake models and fake narratives that it’s impossible to take them seriously. If they were telling the truth, nothing would have to be made up.

John Cook runs the Believer website SkepticalScience.com. It is a collection of arguments trying to defend PREDICTIONS of catastrophic climate change. It is the same John Cook who started the myth. His full quote is as follows: "Over 97 percent endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause."

This is a fairly clear statement -- 97% endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause -- main in common usage meaning more than half or even more.

But when you drill down into Cook's paper, you find that this is not the case.

First of all, this 97% comes from the papers that Cook surveyed, NOT 97% of ALL scientists. The evidence contained in Cook's own writing is that only a handful of those he surveyed endorse the view that the Earth is warming up and "human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause."

Cook refers to this group as those with "explicit endorsement with quantification" (quantification meaning 50% or more).

However, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category. When the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, it was calculated that only 1.6% explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50% of global warming or more.

So from where does this huge 97% come?

Cook created another category called "explicit endorsement WITHOUT quantification". These were papers in which the author, and it was admitted by Cook, did NOT provide ANY percentage of warming caused by man. Another category labeled by Cook as "implicit endorsement", was for papers that ONLY IMPLIED that there is some man-made global warming -- and the authors do NOT quantify it at all.

In other words, Cook created categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly did NOT -- and then lumped them all together to come up with his 97%.

The 97% claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public and scientists who disagree with Cook and disagree with the man-made climate-change narrative.

Scientists whose papers were used in Cook's survey have regularly objected to how their papers were mischaracterized. One stated that only 10 of his 122 papers were used by Cook. Half of the 10 papers considered were rated incorrectly. Four of 5 of those papers were rated as endorsing Cook's narrative rather than being neutral. All wrong according to the author.

Think about how many times you hear that 97% or some similar figure thrown around. It’s propagated by people who stand to gain financially from that ideological agenda.

So on the heels of all of these revelations about the 97% Myth, there is a new survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. A strong majority (much more than half) of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

According to the survey, only 36% of respondents fit the "Comply with Kyoto" model. The scientists in this group "express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause."

The survey notes that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate."

So the next time you start to hear "97% of scientists ...", you can start laughing out loud before they even complete the sentence. You will be safe in the knowledge that you haven't been indoctrinated and fooled.

The NOAA (National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration) is removing climate change from its list of priorities.

New York Times:

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is part of the Department of Commerce, operates a constellation of earth-observing satellites. Because of its work on climate science data collection and analysis, it has become one of the most important American agencies for making sense of the warming planet. But that focus may shift, according to a slide presentation at a Department of Commerce meeting by Tim Gallaudet, the acting head of the agency.

In the presentation, which included descriptions of the past and present missions for the agency, the past mission listed three items, starting with “to understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans and coasts.” In contrast, for the present mission, the word “climate” was gone, and the first line was replaced with “to observe, understand and predict atmospheric and ocean conditions.”

The presentation also included a new emphasis: “To protect lives and property, empower the economy, and support homeland and national security.”

The NOAA was recently caught trying to adjust the winter of 2017-2018 as just our imagination. As one of the agencies charged with maintaining the US Historical Climatology Network (a major worldwide custodian of earth surface temperature), their role is important. However, they have frequently been caught adjusting data to make temps colder in the early 1900s and recent temps hotter. Why? To give a more dramatic impression of their climate change agenda.

Being caught adjusting data is a regular occurrence for Believers and their data collectors, who continue to insist that their climate change beliefs are "settled science." But their data is never settled. 55555

The NOAA (National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration) is removing climate change from its list of priorities.

If you think that this is anything other than a political move by Trump and Ross, you're mistaken.

Actually, the political movement was under Obama and before. That foolishness was Obama's main priority, and he listed it as the greatest threat to the US. 555

There's still no evidence for all of the reasons that I've stated previously. I won't list them all again.

And I will add -- Obama syphoned off over $120 billion dollars over 7 years from the Defense Department to pay for his climate change initiatives because he could never get Congress to pay for that foolishness. And what exactly does anyone have to show for improved climate after that $120 billion? Nothing. Not a damn thing.

That $120 billion would have been better spent on our military -- where Congress appropriated it.

Climate Barbie still at it trying to get money out of Canadians for something she is yet to explain -- which is why Ontarians REJECT cap & trade and carbon taxes.

=====

And speaking of emissions ... ran across this little tidbit of information the other day. Very nice.

USA #1 in reductions in the world. And gee, those numbers are through the end of 2017. It happened under Trump?!?!? Impossible. He slashed all those regulations so that Americans would have dirty air and dirty water.

STEADY WINNING there too.

NOTE: It proves that if ALL countries are not successful in reducing emissions, there is no way the environment will be helped by any amount of money thrown at it. Not to mention the fact that no one has been able to explain the measurable reductions that will occur when money is thrown at Mother Nature. Frankly, I believe she'll laugh at it while governments steal from their citizens while talking in circles.

you measure carbon output per capita , not by country . so Mr Lonsome care to give us numbers on how much a Chinese person produces compared to an American . after all there are 5x as many Chinese than americans so china being the largest polluter is not a surprise ,1,415,485,224 people will produce a lot

For some, the English language is very tricky. Understanding words and their meanings is very important and necessary for comprehension.

For anyone who may misinterpret it, the CO2 chart is measuring REDUCTIONS and INCREASES in emissions for the year 2017. Those words are in bold black in the title and appear again next to the groups of countries. The chart is not measuring total output.

You must be joking..... taking your stats from BP ..... LOL...
The OECD stats say that the US emissions decrease from 2014 to 2015 is a 2.2 % ( No figures for 2016-2017)...
BP graphic a Fake new, Total lie, Total BS......

From Scientific..
''
he US is involved in lots of economic activities around the world. The good part is that it is making plans to ensure the elimination of the emission of carbon dioxide. However, at the moment, its annual rate being released is around 14.34%. It may interest you to know that it used to be more than that rate as it got reduced due to some strategies put in place during the Obama administration. The moves put in place can only guarantee that the health of its citizens will not be at risk in the future.
""

You must be joking..... taking your stats from BP ..... LOL...
The OECD stats say that the US emissions decrease from 2014 to 2015 is a 2.2 % ( No figures for 2016-2017)...
BP graphic a Fake new, Total lie, Total BS......

From Scientific..
''
he US is involved in lots of economic activities around the world. The good part is that it is making plans to ensure the elimination of the emission of carbon dioxide. However, at the moment, its annual rate being released is around 14.34%. It may interest you to know that it used to be more than that rate as it got reduced due to some strategies put in place during the Obama administration. The moves put in place can only guarantee that the health of its citizens will not be at risk in the future.
""

Thanks... BUT you failed to mention that ENERGYINDEPTH is '' a Project of the Independent Petroleum Association of America."" BP and or Petroleum association are NOT credible sources.... they are the Marketing arms of the Petroleum Industry..
Granted the US has reduced its CO2 emissions by 2%, thanks to previous administration......will this trend continue ? that s the question....

Thanks... BUT you failed to mention that ENERGYINDEPTH is '' a Project of the Independent Petroleum Association of America."" BP and or Petroleum association are NOT credible sources.... they are the Marketing arms of the Petroleum Industry..
Granted the US has reduced its CO2 emissions by 2%, thanks to previous administration......will this trend continue ? that s the question....

That's why I provide sources, monk.

You are free to believe whatever you wish. If there is some data that is misreported or you don't trust the source, you are free to prove that the data is incorrect.

The fact that there is so much distrust when it comes to measuring things like this only proves my point that the science isn't settled, that all countries are not cooperating and reducing emissions, and there is still no definitive explanation as to how any carbon tax revenue will be spent in any measurable way to reduce the claims made regarding any global warming created by man.

For some, the English language is very tricky. Understanding words and their meanings is very important and necessary for comprehension.

For anyone who may misinterpret it, the CO2 chart is measuring REDUCTIONS and INCREASES in emissions for the year 2017. Those words are in bold black in the title and appear again next to the groups of countries. The chart is not measuring total output.

so the fact an American produces 2.5x what a Chinese does is irrelevant ? or the fact that the Chinese economy is growing much faster than the American economy is irrelevant too ? the point being you can't brag about reducing co2 output when your carbon footprint is so huge that even a reduction of 60% would only bring you in line with the Chinese as polluters, as I said just spreading propaganda . or don't let the truth get in the way of a good old bit of BS.
Do you not know China is the world's largest manufacturing economy and exporter of goods ?
your explanation ranks up with an alcoholic saying he had only 29 drinks last night instead of 30 so that means he's no longer an alcoholic . you really do like pointing people in the wrong direction . so quite honestly such a small drop in the numbers is pathetic at best and pointing out china is rising we all know about already.
so anyway it has to be true as it on the internet so it must be true ...lies damn lies and statistics.
well lets hope they put a bit more effort into it